Capitalism Will Bring World Peace

Britain through most of the 19th century was highly capitalistic, except in one very important regard: the Bank of England. No amount of welfare, regulation, state control of production and so forth does more to threaten the essential dynamic of the free market (free competition) than a central bank, literally owned and operated by the wealthiest private banking interests in the land. British industry was ruined because of the depredations of high finance, which would have been impossible without the central bank. For example, the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, which opened up the English market to foreign grain imports, destroyed the english yeomanry, and drove a huge segement of the population into the cities. The abominable labor conditions during this period are more a result of that trend - excess industrial labor in overcrowded cities - than of any fundemental tendency of capitalism to brutally exploit workers. Of course, another cause was the absence - due to government prohibition and repression - of functioning labor unions, which in a free market act as a counbter-balance to immense corporations. Back to my point though; the repeal of the Corn Laws, and of other protective tarrifs on imported industrial goods, was not achieved through the influence of English manufacturers or landowners. Rather, it was the bankers, in control of the central bank, who wanted 'free trade.' Why? Because of some preference for open markets in principle? Hardly, they wanted 'free trade' because it would make England increasingly dependent on foreign manufactures and commodities; as they controlled the international markets through the endless credit of the central bank, this meant that they could garantee themselves a position as middleman in that trade. This motive still drives most economic developments in the world; the elite western financial houses, with the indispensable assistance of the central banks they control - i.e. the government granted monopolies on credit - attempt to control international markets through the depth of their pockets, while simulteinsouly denying investment capital for real economic development. If you control this financial system, it doesn't matter to you if world production slows and development stops; you don't profit from production, you profit from market transactions - being the middleman - by virtue of your endlessly deep pockets. As long as you retain this control, and prevent real economic growth independent of the markets you control - read: protectionism - you control everything. It's a zero-sum game; you're share of the pie constantly increases, so who cares if the pie is shrinking?

If state monopolies are anathema to capitalism - as they are - there is nothing more anathema to capitalism than a central bank, which is in effect a private monopoly on the creation of credit.

You do know the definitions of capitalism and socialism, right?
Capitalism doesn't mean "something undesirable", and socialism doesn't mean "something desirable".
Socialism is state control of the means of production, what successes has that concept had?
Capitalism is the private control of the means of production, so how are any of the things you don't like capitalism?

if you are for "being social", the economic system that promotes that the most is capitalism. As exemplified by the fact that US Americans donate more per capita than any other nation.

America has the biggest difference between the rich and the poor in the developed world. Does that mean your poor are less capable than say those in France or Holland? or does it show that your capitalist system restricts the ability to climb the social ladder?

Socialism does not control the means of production, it controls the excesses of greed , a necessity in a capitalist system. Unbridled capitalism is a formula for corruption and greed. The Nordic countries have shown us how social democracy can work.

No, it does not. "The poor" are a statistical group, defined as some bottom percentage of income earners. If everybody is richer then there are still "the poor". Even if they all have standards of living that were considered luxury only a generation ago.
One reason the US is the richest nation on earth is that if you provide services for others, you get to keep the compensation. And if you fail, you get to bear the consequences. It sounds cruel but it means that everybody is incentivized to be successful, which means that all of society is better off. Especially the poor.
In those idyllic Nordic countries the government mandates that success is forbidden. So statistically there is a smaller difference in incomes. But it comes at the expense of society as a whole.
The Nordic countries have a far higher poverty rate than the US, pre state wealth redistribution. This means that their economy keeps people from climbing the ladder, and then gives them other peoples money so everybody is equal on paper. This means that society loses out on what they would have produced in a competitive market, and what those who are forced to give them their income would have produced if they weren't discouraged through the taxes.

I asked you a few times, if you can mention a specific socialist policy that works, or is it all some idealistic, vague theory?



No, socialism is per definition the state intervention in the economy. I'm sorry, but that's what the word means. The rich and their propaganda might want you to believe something else, that socialism is caring for each others and being social, they might advertise it as that, but socialism is defined as them having control over your financial transactions. Bailing out bankers is socialism.

Socialism doesn't control the excesses of greed, it just gives the most powerful of society the ability to control the economy for the sake of their own greed.
We could compare capitalism to a health care system. You are saying that many people die in hospitals, so obviously the unbridled medical system harms people, and we need to control the medical system with interventions.

I wonder how the Nordic countries would be off if it wasn't for the capitalist US rescuing every time one of their bigger socialist neighbors decides to conquer them?

My o my o how you ignore the facts. The US has a higher proportion of individuals in poverty than any Nordic country. It also has the highest differential between its rich and poor in the developed world. Dont tell me being poor in America is less difficult than Norway.DO you remember Norway the country I gave as an example of as democratic socialism. Where did you get the idea that success is banned in Norway, sometimes you make me hoot. O and by the way I cant recall America coming to the aid of a Nordic country that had been invaded by another Nordic country, can you give me details? Give me an example of a democratic socialist country controlling the economy. Your claims are becoming more and more outrageous.

The US has a higher proportion of individuals in poverty than any Nordic country.

It also has the highest differential between its rich and poor in the developed world.

O and by the way I cant recall America coming to the aid of a Nordic country that had been invaded by another Nordic country, can you give me details?

Give me an example of a democratic socialist country controlling the economy.

Hmm... yes, Norway. Living in a nation with a population of 5 million that produces 2.5 million bbl/day must be nice. I bet being born as royalty and winning the lottery is nice too. I don't really see how Norways luck could in any way be applicable to any other nation on earth...
So in order for socialism to work we need to find half a barrel of oil per person per day in our backyard. So the US would have to produce 150 million barrels a day. Seems a little unrealistic since the entire world production is just below 80 million barrels.
Then also for socialism to work we need a larger capitalist nation somewhere to supply us with the technological and medical advances that won't happen under socialism. And a large capitalist nation that uses it's military to protect us, since we can't afford one because of socialism.

Translation: In the US everybody gets to bear the consequences of their decisions.Translation: In the US you can be successful.
Why should Nordic countries only fear other Nordic countries? Being invaded by national socialist Germany is bad enough.
We were talking about how you think that democratic socialism doesn't have to turn into communism/nazism. It doesn't really help you as a socialist nation that you don't turn totalitarian, when your socialist neighbor, inspired by the same 'European ideals', turns totalitarian and invades you.
Um... that's what socialism is. Again, can you give me a socialist policy that you think works?

Your logic is bit strange, Germany is not Nordic nor was it socialist, using the world does not imply its moral or political view. I asked first by the way, you answer my question and I might just answer yours.

What question did you want me to answer?

Germany was socialist. They had socialized health care, they were doing things for the "greater good" of the collective, the nazis implemented the first animal rights laws in the world, they were very "green" they implemented some of the first nature protection laws.
If you give the elite the power to control things, then you end up with them exterminating the Jews or invading neighbors, that's what you get.

Ah so the richest country in the world, the US can be used as an example of capitalism but not Norway as socialist:perplexed:

Sure Norway can be an example of socialism, but it's success is not explained by it's socialism. The US is the richest nation because of it's capitalism.

You can call them Christians if you like but they did not abide by any socialist principles I know of. For the good of the community as a whole, that would not exclude such persons as Jews or gypsies. I heard the word democratic used in Iran but its nothing like democracy. Are you so easily convinced by a phrase or a word?

I dont agree with giving any one or any group total control, I'm a democrat. I believe in the will of the people. I especial dont like leaving my life in the hands of a few scoundrels who think creating wealth for them is beneficial to us all. Capitalism sees no further than the next buck profit, its out dated and damaging to us all and the world. It depends on constant growth, like cancer it can not see its killing the host that it depends on.

So what do you classify as success, whats your idea of utopia? Did you notice, I did not rise to your silly statement?

What was that question you wanted me to answer?

---------- Post added 01-28-2010 at 03:02 PM ----------



Utopia is when everybody is free to do what he wants from the power of other people.

Thanks for commenting on the debate. But... no.
We could go through a bunch of economic talk, but I want to focus on one sentence you start out with and then build the rest of your argument on.
You say "It controls the market." You state this as if it follows from being a monopoly. But is not some sort of a priori fact that a company that has a monopoly must control the market. There has to be some reason that the company that has a monopoly is protected from competition outside of it being the monopoly. (I hope you realize that otherwise it would be a circular argument.)

One reason why the company with a monopoly is protected from competition might be that government protects it with laws. This is what happens by far the most often.

But my position does away with this reason. Since I advocate the implementation of free markets, you can't blame that reason for the existence of a monopoly on my position.

Another reason might be that the company is the cheapest/best at producing the product. In that case we do have a competitive market, the monopoly just out-competes all competitors. In this case the customer and society as a whole are not harmed by the existence of a monopoly. If that producer should raise it's prices above market value*, competitors come in to offer the product at market value.

*The company with a monopoly does not set the natural market price. It can only set it's own price. There is always a natural market price of a product, determined by supply and demand. The price the product would have been sold at if the monopoly or cartel didn't fix the price. This market price might not be known to anyone, and the supply and demand that determine it might be obscured by the artificial pricing. But there always exists a competitive price, a company with a monopoly does not have the power to "set the market price".

Anti trust laws mostly protect existing producers from potential competition, not the other way around. Why else would all of big business be for them?
You argument here essentially is: "that we have laws that are supposed to stop monopolies from forming in a free market proves that monopolies can form in a free market". Quick answer is that those laws don't have that effect (or intention). I leave it at that, we can get more into that if you want.

Yes, I consider wealth concentrating a bad thing. Capitalism does resolve that problem, if we just let capitalism work. The more we let it work, the more wealth equals out, like water finding it's own level. But sadly we have such a passion for "doing something", i.e. having the government build dams.

I am referring to individuals. The quote goes like this:
"While it is correct that "the rich" as a statistical group gain more in income than "the poor", every study over the last 30 years found that high income individuals lose income over time. The poor don't stay poor long, and the rich don't stay rich long. Only a quarter of the super rich were still in that group a decade later."
It is from Glenn Beck's Arguing with Idiots, you can chose to not believe that "right-wing demagogue", but I don't think he blatantly makes stuff up in best-selling books. And we probably could figure out some way to confirm it. But I don't want this to be about fact-checking. So believe me or not.
The point is that those statistics you hear about "the rich getting richer in evil capitalism" are misleading. High income individuals are not getting richer, only the statistical group as a whole. The same with low income individuals as opposed to "the poor".
And that the statistical group "the rich" grows, only shows that people can get rich in capitalism. Which I happen to think is a good thing.

My o my o how you ignore the facts. The US has a higher proportion of individuals in poverty than any Nordic country. It also has the highest differential between its rich and poor in the developed world. Dont tell me being poor in America is less difficult than Norway.DO you remember Norway the country I gave as an example of as democratic socialism. Where did you get the idea that success is banned in Norway, sometimes you make me hoot. O and by the way I cant recall America coming to the aid of a Nordic country that had been invaded by another Nordic country, can you give me details? Give me an example of a democratic socialist country controlling the economy. Your claims are becoming more and more outrageous.

Thanks for your response. But... no! You can't avoid economic talk if you're talking economics. By definition, a monopoly controls the market. If you disagree with this then you're not talking about a monopoly. A company can become a monopoly by various means but I'm not concerned with how they get there. The relevance is how do they keep their control on the market? They do this by economies of scale, and other barriers to entry. And this has nothing to do with government intervention.

That is one reason, but there are many others which have nothing to do with government intervention. These can include:

High start-up costs - in an industry that requires huge capital, the chances of people having the means to enter the market are low.

High exit costs - in the unlikely event that someone can afford to start-up a business against a monopoly, the risk of failure and subsequent costs of leaving the market outweigh the slim chance of success.

Economies of scale - the monopoly benefits from having higher productivity because of its huge investments in production. A newcomer will never have the same productivity and thus will never match the supply-side ability of the monopoly.

That's just three. There are more purely economical mechanisms as to why you can not enter the market that have absolutely nothing to do with government.

Your position does indeed do away with governments protecting monopolies. But it does not do away with monopolies.

How can a monopoly be competitive if there's no one to compete against? They give us low prices from the goodness of their hearts? No, they exploit their position of being the only supplier by charging what they want. And once again, suppliers can't simply come in and undercut the monopoly because of the barriers to entry.

It's clear we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a monopoly. I don't know what you're talking of. A monopoly does set the price because their supply curve does not move. Typically, when a normal company raises its prices, the equilibrium shifts downwards on the supply curve, i.e. they lose market share. But a monopoly is the supply curve! They monopolise the supply so if they put the prices up, customers have no choice but to buy from them as there are no competitors. Look, I'm only using definitions here, and not giving you my personal theory of monopolies.

Fair enough. I'm not saying the current laws work, merely pointing out why they exist. And monopolies can and will form in a free market, there's no argument there.

As we move to a future of greater technological advances, there is no doubt that more monopolies will emerge. Why? Because knowledge of advanced technologies lie with a select few individuals who will exclusively be able to bring their ideas and products to the market. I can't see how a purely capitalist setup would avoid this. You can't do away with patent laws (or would you?) so there will always be a situation where brilliant ideas are supplied exclusively by a company.

What about things like cross-subsidizing (where a wealthy company enters a new market using profits from its existing market to undercut suppliers of the new market)? Cross-subsidizing is illegal in the Western world. A purely capitalist setup would not stop cross-subsidizing and would open the door to a whole new type of corporate exploitation.

An example of how cross-subsidization works is the Xbox in the games console industry. Although they did not use any profits from Microsoft to do this, they most certainly used the expertise in software and operating systems to create a console to challenge Sony. They cross-subsidized their expertise, which is of course, legal. But without government intervention, Microsoft could have sold the Xbox at a loss, taking Sony out, and subsidized the losses through their Windows profits. Within five years Sony Playstation would have gone bust, allowing Microsoft to raise their prices to start making profits. How would these types of practises be stopped without government intervention? In purely economical terms, there's nothing corrupt about it.

Hmm. I'm not entirely convinced by that. It would have been nice if he referenced what studies he was using. I agree, I don't want this to be a fact-checking thread but it's a bold statement to make; that there is greater circulation of wealth than what most people believe. The 3/4 of 'super rich' that fell out of that group may simply have fallen into the 'rich' and their places taken by those who were in the 'rich' category. If that's the case (rich and super rich swapping places) then it doesn't say much at all about capitalism.

Nero, please read the following wiki entry and tell me if you agree with the definition of monopoly: Monopoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia